Aw diddums. You object to the strong critique of the poor ol’ IDF! But you have no sympathy whatsoever for the plight of Palestinian civilians because they are all probably Hamas supporters anyway.
Now, knowing that Israel insists on most of its adult inhabitants serving in the military - which means in effect that they are all valid targets - whereas the Palestinians have no such policy, which civilians are worthy of the most sympathy to an outsider?
I assume this screed is in reference to me.
Really? Again, it is news to me that I have no sympathy for Palestinian civilians, let alone that the reason for this lack of sympathy is that they are all probably Hamas supporters.
Where, exactly, do you get this from?
I doubt any reasonable and unbiased outsider believes that Israeli civilians are “all valid targets” because Israel has conscription.
I assume that the reasonable and unbiased outsider has as much sympathy for Israeli civilians as for Palestinian.
ps. Just out of curiosity, how many schools and hospitals have Hamas bombed? Surely those heartless butchers have managed to blow up some Israeli children and defenceless patients in retaliation?
I save my sympathy for those who are suffering the most. Israelis, or Palestinians? Israelis, or Palestinians? Oooooh, that’s a tricky one!
Forest for the trees? He was a leader of Hamas, while Hamas was waging a war against Israel, and he was encamped among his family members. He was using them as human shields so that if he was hit, there would be civilian casualties to point out. As for whether or not a leader for enemy forces ‘excuses’ the deaths of non-combatants, Malthus has already quoted the relevant principle.
So then you agree that the civilians are accidental damage that is minimized to the degree possible and that if Hamas based itself out of civilian areas, the civilian areas wouldn’t be touched. Of course, no, not only “military type folks”. Government facilities are valid targets of war if by their “nature, location, purpose, or use [they make] an effective contribution to military action” and if their “total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage”. Removing Hamas’ command and control ability in their fiefdom constitutes a definite military advantage.
That is not a cite, that is a rough (and inaccurate) paraphrase. There are military laws that demand that civilian casualties be balanced against military need. There are no blanket demand that civilian casualties must definitively be “minimized”.
No, the law of proportionality means that you do not cause clearly excessive civilian loss when hitting a valid military target. Counting up casualties on each side is not the calculus of just war. And you are missing the key dynamic; Israeli casualties are low because they hide in bomb shelters, Palestinian casualties are high because their military forces use them as human shields.
House to house fighting is one of the single most brutal activities any military can engage in, barring carpet bombing. Please explain how Jenin was acceptable to you or the world.
Your claim that the IDF doesn’t give a damn about Palestinian civilians is false, or they’d be using extreme measures rather than targeted strikes. You can not then properly cast that argument as if everything short of firebombing a city is being advocated.
Specifically, what nations do you think are getting special treatment that Israel isn’t?
I tend to camp with my family members too. Must be because I want them to die horrible deaths if anyone attacks me. He couldn’t enjoy spending time with his family or anything. What Hamas should do is draw a giant X and have all their leaders stand on it. That would certainly make things easier for Israel.
Obviously, that is not a disingenuous comparison. At all.
Obviously my situation is not similar. It does however cast doubt upon your assumption of the leader’s motivation that “He was using them as human shields so that if he was hit, there would be civilian casualties to point out.” An alternate potential motivation was that he was living with his family because he enjoyed their company. I would in fact even argue that motivation is more likely to be correct.
No, no, no, no, no, no! They have babies because they can’t afford body armour. Everybody knows that! One on the front, one on the back, and Yasser’s your uncle.
No, it doesn’t cast doubt on anything. That’s the whole point; it’s a deceptive, obfuscatory, misleading and fallacious analogy.
The idea that Hamas’ liaison between its military and political forces just happened to ‘enjoy spending time with his family’ when Hamas was waging a war against Israel strains credulity to the point where it’s gotten a double hernia.
This was a man who stayed with his family while the rest of Hamas’ leadership went into hiding to allow them to continue their war more easily, and who stayed with his family while he knew that he was going to be attacked by the IDF. This was, by the way, confirmed by his own family.
[
Your comparison muddies the waters and advances a point of view that is, rather obviously, untenable if the facts are substituted for the false analogy.
I’m saying it is the other way around - Israel is getting the “special treatment”.
For starters, all of the major military powers in the world - the US, China, and Russia - get less scrutiny and criticism than Israel, even though their warfare is often engaged in with far more brutality.
This is not merely a subjective impression. Just look at figures: the percentage of UN resolutions concerning Israel/Palestine/Lebanon compared with other conflicts show an absurd over-emphasis on the conflicts in that part of the world, which acts as a good proxy for “scrutiny and criticism”.
Here’s a helpful table:
The conflict involving Israel is the subject of 249 resolutions, though the total number of persons killed in the relevant time was 6,935. That’s a ratio of deaths to resolutions of aprox. 28 to 1.
For other conflicts in the same time-frame:
Second Congo War - 72,375 to 1
Second Liberian Civil War - 150,000 to 0
Second Chechen War - 200,000 to 0
War in Afghanistan - 603 to 1
War in Darfur -12,500 to 1
2003 invasion of Iraq - 2,333 to 1
Iraq War (2003-present) - 10,000 to 1
There is nothing even close.
I suppose one could argue that the Israeli conflicts during that time-period were more brutal than (say) the Chechen War, the Second Congo War, or the War in Darfur. However, the more natural argument is that, fir whatever reason, this conflict engages the attention (generally, it need hardly be added, unfavourable to Israel) in a highly disproportionate manner: that Israel is treated as a “special case”.
Again, if you don’t want people to assume shit like that, don’t have such a cavalier attitude about civilian deaths. And don’t ever come back with a reply about how it is radical pacifism to demand perfection. Nobody said perfection, you were the one who brought that into the conversation. I distinctly said the solution was surgical strikes with commandos targeted at the actual terrorists.
I drew the line at hospitals and schools, which shouldn’t be a target, and in response you call that radical pacifism and said it . Get over that little nugget and maybe you’ll have an argument worth making because whenever you come back with a retort, I can say that you are clearly are advocating making hospitals and schools targets by the very fact that you present an argument for their destruction. You were the one who said it was senseless for a nation observing it and that is quite frankly too much crazy for me to stomach
It’s hard to keep some people from assuming weird things. I wouldn’t blame Malthus for stating facts if it allows some people to invent insulting strawmen and apply them to him. As for super ninja commandos, please provide cites of comandoes being able to go into a heavy urban area and prosecute an entire war against thousands of enemy combatants.
And as always, it really pays to learn the facts before you make claims. The 4th Geneva Convention makes it clear that hospitals are not always protected targets.
[
](http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5)
I find it difficult to imagine that Israel’s in any kind of actual war with people who can barely muster up the ability to fire a rocket within a few hundred miles of it’s capital city.
Call it what it is: Israel is being attacked by terrorists. There is no special treatment other than the fact that a lot of Arabic and Muslim nations are part of the UN and do not like it. And being attacked by terrorists does not entitle Israel to the kind of rampant and indiscriminate brutality seen in a real war. Israel is, by all account, at peace. The attacks are infrequent now and rarely result in casualties. That’s why it doesn’t get a free hand to decimate neighborhoods. If the US were being attacked in the same way, I would say the same thing in that we don’t have the right to bomb enclaves where we think they’re hiding and in the process kill many innocent civilians
Israel’s troubles have no comparison to the other conflicts you stated, with the exception of Afghanistan and Iraq because that is also an instance where a greater power occupies a lesser one. And in those instances, the country doing the occupation is on the Security Council, so of course it’s not going to pass resolutions against itself
Emphasis added.
Dude, the post that sent you off the deep end was in response to Hawkeyeop, ** not you ** - see posts 75 and 76. So I have no idea why you are going on about hospitals, are making stuff up about what I posted, etc. etc.
There’s nothing racist going on. Last time I checked many Sephardic Jews were Arabs. My best friend David Cohen has olive skin, wooly hair, and other Semitic features. His father has even darker skin and black hair. They look just like Arabs. This would be because they are.
When people say Arab, they really mean non-Jewish Arab. The Jewish Arabs living in the ME almost universally moved to Israel when it was founded.
Of course there’s nothing racist going on. Not only are the Mizrahim “Arab Jews” but citizenship laws in Israel aren’t based on race at all, Arab citizens of Israel don’t have their children’s citizenship revoked. The issue is one of nationality. A specific group of non-Israelis, who have been at war with Israel for quite some time, are treated differently than others.
Damuri’s claim that this isn’t about security but racial demographics is… odd.
I’m not sure the long-term path to security - whatever Israel’s version of that is - is best achieved by being the most tooled up to prevent an enemy invading. Why don’t you just start building fortified castles again, and stop beating around the burning bush?
Well it looks like I’ve proved my point.
You’ve obviously had a good look round the internet to find someone, anyone who is a Palestinian who condemns Palestinian terrorism and have come up with absolutely nothing.
I read both of your links and they described Palestinians (for a change) using non terrorist means to advance their propaganda.
Yes Palestinians did hold demonstrations where they didn’t try to use violence against Israelis but nowhere in either of your links does a single Palestinian condemn Palestinian terrorism.
Other terrorist organisations have used equally cynical tactics in the recent past such as the so called"Bomb and the Ballot box".
(The idea being to terrorise ordinary people into voting for your candidate; though the two strategies are supposed to be seperate entities)